Rumor: "Very Affordable" PS4 Based on AMD's A10 APU

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Rumor: "Very Affordable" PS4 Based on AMD's A10 APU

image

Sony's successor to the PS3 will be announced before E3 2013, according to anonymous sources.

Rumors have been flying about Sony's next generation console for months and months. Earlier this year, a "credible source" revealed that the successor to the PS3 would be called the Orbis and released in late 2013. According to new revelations from VG247's anonymous sources, these rumors are accurate, and the second of four Orbis dev kits is shipping to game developers this week. Unlike the first dev kit, which was basically just a graphics card, the second iteration was described as a "modified PC."

A "disclosure meeting" was held earlier in the week for some US game developers, in which Sony only referred to its next console as the Orbis, not using the words "PlayStation 4" at all. The sources also revealed that the Orbis is based on the AMD A10 APU series, with the system's APU a "derivative" of existing hardware and "based on A10 system and base platform." Sony's ultimate goal is to have the hardware run 1080p60 in 3D with "no problem." Other specs include a 256GB hard drive "as a standard" and "either 8Gb or 16Gb of RAM." Not surprisingly, Blu-ray, built-in Wi-Fi, ethernet connectivity, and an HDMI output will all be back for the next generation.

The Orbis also reportedly has a redesigned user interface, allowing users to seamlessly switch between applications by pressing the PS button on the controller. It can also perform background updates, with the publisher "trying to make it as fluid as possible." Though the machine "isn't a slouch," Sony is trying to avoid the mistakes it made with the PS3 launch by making the Orbis "very affordable."

The sources said that the system will be announced just before E3 2013. The third dev kits are due out in January, with a final version going out next summer. If this is true, that implies that Orbis will be out by the end of 2013. Of course, none of this has been verified by Sony, and we probably won't get confirmation until the PS4, or Orbis, or whatever it ends up being called, is formally announced.

Source: VG247

Permalink

I wonder how they plan to make it "very affordable". There's a reason the PS3 was so expensive at launch...

Fappy:
I wonder how they plan to make it "very affordable". There's a reason the PS3 was so expensive at launch...

Bluray was still new in the market and now you can get a cheap player for 80 dollars at wal-mart. The rest sound like specs for high end computer aside from the HDD size so I could see this being around the 300-400 dollar mark.

Where is the xbox 720 in development?

Will be interesting to see if there is a race to be first now. Or if sony can somehow pull that rabbit out of a hat with an "affordable" system, first to the market, like the ps2 that managed to win that gen by being first and having an enormous quality library of games.

Everything sounds good except the RAM. Isn't 16GB a bit of an overkill?

Rayken15:
Everything sounds good except the RAM. Isn't 16GB a bit of an overkill?

Maybe they could get away with 8GB, but assuming this is true, maybe they want to avoid people complaining about not having enough again.

Anyway, who knows how much of this is really to be believed, but I do hope that they're learning from their mistakes and are going to make their next console more affordable. Between the PS3, PSP, and Vita, how many times do they have to keep making the same mistake before they learn? Mind you, I say that while fully acknowledging that the PS3 hasn't been the dismal failure people have always made it out to be, and that the PSP actually sold pretty well if you compare it to things that aren't the DS or another Nintendo handheld.

Given how bad Sony is at keeping secrets. I would say that there is a 60% chance this is true.

Let's hope Sony can stay true to their claim that it's "affordable". I swear the price of their recent hardware, PS3 (when it was new) and PSV, is what's hurting them.

I have a hard time believing anything created by Sony is "very affordable".
It might be like the Vita, where the system price seems reasonable, but you need to pay extra for essentials.

Orbis basic system for $399.99.
Includes 256 GB hard drive and 1 month free Playstation Plus subscription.
Backwards compatibility available only in $499.99 models. Controller sold separately.
Price for controller: $99.99
Price for games at launch: $80.00

AMD's top A10 APU's GPU that costs $122 on it's own at 1280x720 resolution with all graphic settings at there lowest can get 48fps on the PC in Battlefield, 32fps in Crysis 2 that is not good now let alone in 5 years.

Rayken15:
Everything sounds good except the RAM. Isn't 16GB a bit of an overkill?

Depends. If they're including the GPU ram in that estimate, which I believe they do for spouting off the PS3 specs, then it may not be overkill. Also depends on what type of RAM, and the speed, they're using. I'd expect anywhere between 6GB and a 12GB RAM for the system in general. That would bring it up to many modern gaming PCs running today.

If this is their setup, I can believe that it would be affordable. Then again, I'm looking at a major overhaul of my gaming PC so $500 is my graphics card alone so I'm wearing fuzzy PC glasses.

Kumagawa Misogi:
AMD's top A10 APU's GPU that costs $122 on it's own at 1280x720 resolution with all graphic settings at there lowest can get 48fps on the PC in Battlefield, 32fps in Crysis 2 that is not good now let alone in 5 years.

The PS3 and Xbox 360 launch with pretty "shitty" GPUs too. It worked out alright.

We will just have to see. Without legacy (Intel controlled) PC architecture getting in the way, without OS and driver overhead, plus being a "fixed" platform where you can write to the metal, we should see considerably better performance.

Of course all this talk is for naught if this rumour is false.

deadish:

Kumagawa Misogi:
AMD's top A10 APU's GPU that costs $122 on it's own at 1280x720 resolution with all graphic settings at there lowest can get 48fps on the PC in Battlefield, 32fps in Crysis 2 that is not good now let alone in 5 years.

The PS3 and Xbox 360 launch with pretty "shitty" GPUs too. It worked out alright.

We will just have to see. Without legacy (Intel controlled) PC architecture getting in the way, without OS and driver overhead, plus being a "fixed" platform where you can write to the metal, we should see considerably better performance.

Of course all this talk is for naught if this rumour is false.

You have no idea what your talking about, the GPU in the 360 was better than any available PC GPU when it launched. The PS3 launched in late 2006 with a Nvidia GPU that was only superseded by Nvidia's new gpu that was launched in? late 2006.

To me, affordable is currantly not in my price range. But its good to know that I wont need a loan to buy one.

Rayken15:
Everything sounds good except the RAM. Isn't 16GB a bit of an overkill?

I should imagine it's to enable massive levels to be loaded into the ram, not the current method of loading things only as you walk nearer them.

Fappy:
I wonder how they plan to make it "very affordable". There's a reason the PS3 was so expensive at launch...

The principle reason was because Sony had dominated over a decade of home consoles and thought they could charge whatever they wanted. That and the funky maths they applied to it and BluRay's development.

This one sounds like it's going to be based on existing licensed hardware, in the same vein as Xbox ,Gamecube and Wii were. That's good for us and for developers.

Rayken15:
Everything sounds good except the RAM. Isn't 16GB a bit of an overkill?

Maybe, but RAM is cheap.

The PS3 is massively under powered in respect of RAM, 256MB system and the same again VRAM, which is not enough and has led to all kinds of development issues, especially for open world games.

Also

A-series chips share their system and VRAM as well, adding more and faster RAM to them has a similar effect to overclocking, but without the added power and heat issues. Having that much available could allow for the loading of entire games into the RAM from hard disc, which would make loading nice. Don't forget that if the PS4 supports Dx11 or equivalent that tessellation and anti-aliasing use masses of VRAM as well. 8GB could run out very quickly when it's handling everything and a 1080p or better screen.

I still wonder graphicly speaking who is going to be on top? Looks like if Microsoft holds back till Sony gets their product announced they might take the advantage. Hopefully though by then they will adopt a disc storage capacity that is more then 9 GB. Having to switch discs in this day and age seems redundant.

Kumagawa Misogi:
AMD's top A10 APU's GPU that costs $122 on it's own at 1280x720 resolution with all graphic settings at there lowest can get 48fps on the PC in Battlefield, 32fps in Crysis 2 that is not good now let alone in 5 years.

But that is at retail, for a single unit and running Windows underneath.

Halve that cost for a massive trade order (quarter it for licensed manufacturing) and cut the operating system out. It's an order of magnitude faster than what's in the PS3 and that handles Crysis 2/Battlefield 3 just fine, granted at Dx9 level but it still runs.

Hmm... Il be keeping a close eye on the PS4 methinks. This whole thing seems like a recipie for a succesfull console so far.

Of course this is a rumor but I kinda figured. I mean, the fact that the WiiU is less than a month away just means that MS and Sony can't stay behind for too long. And by staying behind I mean they need to deliver a new console. And it's also smart to officially build up the anticipation before E3 and then officially unveil it at E3 so that you can get it during the holidays. Nintendo only got one of those right...

as far as being affordable...I get why the PS3 was so expensive but I'm willing to say it will be around $400 at launch. I dunno, it's just a crackpot theory. The PS2 was $200 at launch because it was new. That's all. So...yeah, I'm betting on $400-ish (Which doesn't seem very affordable to me but whatever). I'm also worried about the software price. Those go up every time a new console comes out, so what, we're looking at $70 or $80 per average game?

*Sigh* Again, crackpot theory but...I'm starting to think I won't be able to keep up with my gaming habits for too long.

The best news if this is true is that they've ditched the crazy-ass Cell architecture for something much more standard. You should see good games much faster after launch, and much less wasted dev time on cross-platform titles.

Like everyone else I am focused on the RAM. My problem however, is I do not like the concept of a console having two different RAM levels, or even the capacity for upgradable ram. Reminds me too much of things like the FX chip on n64. If the high end capacity for the spec is 16... All units need to be 16. And yes for next gen, 16 is an ideal amount.

Especially with this being SONY and the likelihood that they will eventually say, all 8gb ram sets are insufficient to use and you MUST upgrade to 16, and you have to use our proprietary RAM chips, and if you refuse to upgrade you will not be able to access any digital content until you do, and upgrading ram by any means other than authorized upgrade center is a breach of not only the warranty of the device but the Terms of service of your leased physical hardware. And any use you find on the leased equipment that does not meet with our corporate approval will result in forfeiture of rights and admission of guilt of theft of copywritten material

I mean this IS SONY we are talking about.

Kumagawa Misogi:

deadish:

Kumagawa Misogi:
AMD's top A10 APU's GPU that costs $122 on it's own at 1280x720 resolution with all graphic settings at there lowest can get 48fps on the PC in Battlefield, 32fps in Crysis 2 that is not good now let alone in 5 years.

The PS3 and Xbox 360 launch with pretty "shitty" GPUs too. It worked out alright.

We will just have to see. Without legacy (Intel controlled) PC architecture getting in the way, without OS and driver overhead, plus being a "fixed" platform where you can write to the metal, we should see considerably better performance.

Of course all this talk is for naught if this rumour is false.

You have no idea what your talking about, the GPU in the 360 was better than any available PC GPU when it launched. The PS3 launched in late 2006 with a Nvidia GPU that was only superseded by Nvidia's new gpu that was launched in? late 2006.

I will admit, my memory is foggy. I recalled there were better, granted more expensive, video cards available. Don't recall either the PS3 nor 360 launching with top of the line GPU cores - maybe from same "tech linage" yes, R520 and GF7 series; but not top of the line, Sony and MS would go broke.

Either way, the rest of my post still holds.

viranimus:
Like everyone else I am focused on the RAM. My problem however, is I do not like the concept of a console having two different RAM levels, or even the capacity for upgradable ram. Reminds me too much of things like the FX chip on n64. If the high end capacity for the spec is 16... All units need to be 16. And yes for next gen, 16 is an ideal amount.

Especially with this being SONY and the likelihood that they will eventually say, all 8gb ram sets are insufficient to use and you MUST upgrade to 16, and you have to use our proprietary RAM chips, and if you refuse to upgrade you will not be able to access any digital content until you do, and upgrading ram by any means other than authorized upgrade center is a breach of not only the warranty of the device but the Terms of service of your leased physical hardware. And any use you find on the leased equipment that does not meet with our corporate approval will result in forfeiture of rights and admission of guilt of theft of copywritten material

I mean this IS SONY we are talking about.

I doubt "RAM upgrades" will happen. They didn't happen with any of Sony's consoles to date.

To make it upgradable they need to install sockets for the RAM to plug in, this increases manufacturing cost. Very unlikely.

Beautiful End:
Of course this is a rumor but I kinda figured. I mean, the fact that the WiiU is less than a month away just means that MS and Sony can't stay behind for too long. And by staying behind I mean they need to deliver a new console. And it's also smart to officially build up the anticipation before E3 and then officially unveil it at E3 so that you can get it during the holidays. Nintendo only got one of those right...

as far as being affordable...I get why the PS3 was so expensive but I'm willing to say it will be around $400 at launch. I dunno, it's just a crackpot theory. The PS2 was $200 at launch because it was new. That's all. So...yeah, I'm betting on $400-ish (Which doesn't seem very affordable to me but whatever). I'm also worried about the software price. Those go up every time a new console comes out, so what, we're looking at $70 or $80 per average game?

*Sigh* Again, crackpot theory but...I'm starting to think I won't be able to keep up with my gaming habits for too long.

Man, if game prices really do go up to $70-$80 per game, I almost definitely will be dropping out of the main part of the hobby. I'll wind up just sticking with a PC and the consoles I already have, playing old classics, new indie games, and F2P titles. I'm hoping "affordable at launch" means "will actually be affordable at some point before the hardware is completely obsolete," because I love Sony's consoles and their exclusives, and they really screwed the pooch this gen with the $600 launch price that was somehow still a loss leader for them. But if the game price goes up another $10, they'll have completely driven me out of the console market and into the PC and smart phone market, regardless of what the system itself costs.

deadish:

I doubt "RAM upgrades" will happen. They didn't happen with any of Sony's consoles to date.

To make it upgradable they need to install sockets for the RAM to plug in, this increases manufacturing cost. Very unlikely.

I would think so too, but when looking at manufacturing costs and suggesting two different ram allocations, which seems more likely, making two different versions of the same hardware for each allocation, Or making one version with an empty RAM DIMM?

EDIT: I reread the article... I might be misinterpreting the 8gb or 16gb Ram. I was taking it to mean there would be optional models, much as is popular in I-products whereas It is inappropriate in consoles.

Edit2: Although that could still be feasible, if the Ram Allocation was governed much in the way an operating system limits the max amount of Ram that can be used per program, you could simply set the limit for all games to meet the 8gb limit, and those with the additional 8gb could utilize that ram for other multitasked programs running in the background. Given the push for multitasking and again, the precedents set by Smartphones, that seems like a realistic possibility.

Will it be backwards compatible?, if not, then I'm not interested, I don't own a PS3, but if the PS4 is backwards compatible, I'll definitely get one, because by the time the PS4 get released, most of the PS3 games I wanted will be discounted, pretty much like what happened to PS2... and speaking of wich... PS2 games in PS4... please?

viranimus:

deadish:

I doubt "RAM upgrades" will happen. They didn't happen with any of Sony's consoles to date.

To make it upgradable they need to install sockets for the RAM to plug in, this increases manufacturing cost. Very unlikely.

I would think so too, but when looking at manufacturing costs and suggesting two different ram allocations, which seems more likely, making two different versions of the same hardware for each allocation, Or making one version with an empty RAM DIMM?

EDIT: I reread the article... I might be misinterpreting the 8gb or 16gb Ram. I was taking it to mean there would be optional models, much as is popular in I-products whereas It is inappropriate in consoles.

Edit2: Although that could still be feasible, if the Ram Allocation was governed much in the way an operating system limits the max amount of Ram that can be used per program, you could simply set the limit for all games to meet the 8gb limit, and those with the additional 8gb could utilize that ram for other multitasked programs running in the background. Given the push for multitasking and again, the precedents set by Smartphones, that seems like a realistic possibility.

The thing about smart phones, assuming you're talking about Apple's tiered model, is that that's not system ram. It's storage memory. As far as I know, a given generation of Apple hardware is going to to have the same amount of ram, processor speed, and so on regardless of model, with the amount of storage memory being the only thing that changes. This is already analagous to how consoles have different models with different sized hard drives. The only real difference is that Apple's stuff has a fixed memory size. Most of their competitors' hardware has a micro-SD slot for expansion, which is one of the many reasons that I'm not a fan of Apple's stuff.

A name change is wise from a branding stand point if they're not going to support the previous consoles software. Knowing Sony, they won't; especially since their digital signatures and encryption have been broken.

16gb of RAM on an A10 would be a waist, especially in a limited task focused enviroment like a game console, now if they are going to allow 'Other OS' again then 16gb could be a real possibility, but again, Sony stopped 'Other OS' for a reason. Keep in mind the current console generation has been getting by on 512MB of RAM. I'd be surprised to see more than 4GB, my desktop under heaving gaming never goes over 6GB and 2GB of that is other crap running in the back ground.

*edit I forgot GPU RAM and General RAM or totaled for consoles, 6GB would still probably be overkill on a console.

Also, PC system performance on a set chip shouldn't be compared with a console performance. When your not having to deal with Direct X and have programmed and compiled for the hardware your running on specifically you can achieve very impressive results. PC's have to rely on raw horse power to make up for software overhead that doesn't exist in a console environment. Keeping that in mind what an A10 APU can do working with win7 it should be more than sufficient for next gen gaming.

The only problem I see is the same one Apple reportedly had when they were investigating using AMD in their original Air's, that being AMD lacked the supply chain to meet the demands that Apple estimated. AMD's ability to get millions of chips out hasn't really improved. Sony would have to stock up before release and then deal with high demand for months after release with AMD. Not that the Original PS3's release was expedient by any definition.

Fappy:
I wonder how they plan to make it "very affordable". There's a reason the PS3 was so expensive at launch...

There was too much stuff in it. Remember the plan was for the Cell to do *everything* pulling double duty as CPU and GPU but that didn't work out, so they slapped a (what was it, like a half-generation??) Geforce in there to handle graphics, then there was the Emotion Engine for PS2 compatibility, and lets not forget the BD-ROM drive (which was horribly expensive at the time).

16GB seems really unlikely though. It'll be 4-8GB of fastish regular DDR3 ('cus it's cheap), and more likely 4 than 6 or 8.

Pfft, DP... And not the good kind.

Eclipse Dragon:
I have a hard time believing anything created by Sony is "very affordable".
It might be like the Vita, where the system price seems reasonable, but you need to pay extra for essentials.

Orbis basic system for $399.99.
Includes 256 GB hard drive and 1 month free Playstation Plus subscription.
Backwards compatibility available only in $499.99 models. Controller sold separately.
Price for controller: $99.99
Price for games at launch: $80.00

If it was Bbackwards compatible all the way back to PS1.. I'd happily drop $500 on one.

Also, sadly, if the graphics whores keep getting their way, we will probably see $80 games in the coming console generation.

Owyn_Merrilin:

The thing about smart phones, assuming you're talking about Apple's tiered model, is that that's not system ram. It's storage memory. As far as I know, a given generation of Apple hardware is going to to have the same amount of ram, processor speed, and so on regardless of model, with the amount of storage memory being the only thing that changes. This is already analagous to how consoles have different models with different sized hard drives. The only real difference is that Apple's stuff has a fixed memory size. Most of their competitors' hardware has a micro-SD slot for expansion, which is one of the many reasons that I'm not a fan of Apple's stuff.

Yeah, I confess I ended up doing a complete end around within the course of one post. And yes, I was referring to apples storage capacity as analogy for Ram capacity suggestion here. Hence why I suggested one base model with empty slots for core usage, And allow that to represent two models, Core, and multi tasking models. More I think on it, the more it makes sense to me.

viranimus:

Owyn_Merrilin:

The thing about smart phones, assuming you're talking about Apple's tiered model, is that that's not system ram. It's storage memory. As far as I know, a given generation of Apple hardware is going to to have the same amount of ram, processor speed, and so on regardless of model, with the amount of storage memory being the only thing that changes. This is already analagous to how consoles have different models with different sized hard drives. The only real difference is that Apple's stuff has a fixed memory size. Most of their competitors' hardware has a micro-SD slot for expansion, which is one of the many reasons that I'm not a fan of Apple's stuff.

Yeah, I confess I ended up doing a complete end around within the course of one post. And yes, I was referring to apples storage capacity as analogy for Ram capacity suggestion here. Hence why I suggested one base model with empty slots for core usage, And allow that to represent two models, Core, and multi tasking models. More I think on it, the more it makes sense to me.

It won't happen. It will split the install base, bad idea as one of the strengths of a console is that the hardware is uniform across the board - excluding things like secondary storage that doesn't really impact the way a program is written (unless it uses a crazy amount of secondary storage when executing).

When they say, 8-16GB, it probably just means they haven't decide on which to standardise on.

I really hope it's not called 'Orbis'. PS4/Play Station 4 Suits the console much more, especially since it's been through 1 to 3.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here